Allowed

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC11 Sept 2018RP/662/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a review petition regarding WPC 35189/2017 concerning permission to use property. Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the application within six weeks considering documents produced by petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application within six weeks considering available documents.

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 662 of 2018 IN WP(C). 35189/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 35189/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03-11-2017

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶8

VALSAMMA CHARLES W/O.K.C.CHARLES, AGED 63, KANATHEKKATTU HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES POLY MATHAI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT COCHIN, KOCHI-682001.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695 001

¶12

GOVERNMENT PLEADER VINEETHA B.

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RP.No. 662 of 2018 IN WP(C). 35189/2017

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The direction sought for in the writ petition is to the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order to consider and pass orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for permission to use the property for other purposes. It was observed in the judgment that the report of the Convener of the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committee was to be forwarded to the RDO. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report had already been forwarded to the RDO and that the same is available with the RDO. Exts.P3, P6 and P7 reports produced in the writ petition are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that all the required documents were available before the RDO.

¶18

In the above of the view of the matter, the review petition is allowed. The judgment is reviewed. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application preferred by the petitioner, taking note of the documents available before him within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶19

RP.No. 662 of 2018 IN WP(C). 35189/2017

¶20

¶21

receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The review petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

sab

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sanilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahila Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

Madhu S Vs the State of Kerala

Benny C. Mathew Vs Sri. Tomin.J. Thachankary.Ips

Shaji P.B Vs Kerala Cricket Association

Beena Josey Vs Sub Collector Devikulam